Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Merckens

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided November 25, 1929No. 3191Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OTINION

Bland and GarRETt, Judges:

We are unable to concur with the majority of our associates in the reasons which they assign for holding that the small tin and glass toy slot machines in controversy are not toys, and also can not concur in the finding that they are “other machines or parts thereof.”

*322The majority holds that they are not toys because the evidence in the case, which it says is not very satisfactory, is sufficient to establish that the articles were designed not only for the purpose of amusement but also “for the purpose of instilling in the child mind the value of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
  2. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  3. Brooks v. MarburySupreme Court of the United States · 1826
  4. United States v. WanamakerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1927
  5. United States v. Meier & Frank Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API